freestompboxes.org

Okay I got it working on the breadboard with those parts.

I did the vero board layout and my new problem is The effect doesn't appear to be working, and my guitar is muted in neck and bridge positions, but the signal goes through on the middle position.

What should I look at?
I think maybe 1 of my caps is backwards because of the phase issue?

Early in the thread there was discussion about what to use for the bipolar. Your polarized tant 10u is backwards, ground to 5k1, + to out.

Hey Guys, especially Soulsonic,

I want to build a super duper out of 2 CNOs. I just happened to stumble over a quote from Zachary in this thread from 2005:
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/sho ... n-yr-chain

Zachary Vex wrote:just in case anyone's wondering, the super-duper 2-in-1 has two super hard-ons inside of it. the second one has a master volume control that replaces the tie-down output resistor in a standard super hard-on, but when that master is turned up all the way, both channels are precisely the same as a super hard-on.
okay, that's a lie. there is one teeny-tiny difference. the super hard-on's input frequency response is 0.3 Hz to 100kHz. i was forced to limit the super duper's frequency response to 3Hz-100kHz because when i left all that near-DC response in there, the unit would nearly shut down and go silent for half a second with both gains cranked all the way if you hit a hard chord. but what's a couple of Hertz between friends?

Does this make any difference with the CNOs at all? What would have to be changed to get a different frequency response similar to the one Zach described? I've seen a Super Duper Schematic with 47k/50k tie-down output resistors. Is this the way to go with the CNO as well?

cheers

That power of ten difference sounds like a cap replacement; taking the input cap as a low pass filter for example, a 5n and a 10M would correspond to a corner freq of 3Hz. I'm not precisely sure what % attenuation is used to determine frequency response.

The 100n/10M in an SHO corresponds to a corner of 0.2Hz, so to get that up to 2Hz would be either reducing the resistor to 1M or increasing the cap to 1u.

The output cap/resistor have the same RC value so you'd also have to either use a 1M pot or a 100u capacitor there to get 2Hz at the bottom.

Okay i have almost finished my first CNO. Just one Question. The Schematic shows a 10u Bipolar Transistor for C2. The Vero Layout on Page 6 uses a regular Elko. Mine doesn't work either , the signal passes trough without alteration. (i used the vero and just noticed the descrepancy)

Seiche wrote:the signal passes trough without alteration

i have to withdraw that statement. I the Gain Control acts as a high pass filter. Much like a tone control the tone becomes bright and the lows are robbed. I don't really get it. Could the polar elko be the problem? Or could i have wrong wiring on the pot?

is the bipolar cap essential for the circuit to work right?

I have two options:
- If the bipolar is necessary, i have to wait for my order to get here
- If a regular polarized cap will do, i have to troubleshoot the circuit some more

Would be good if SoulSonic or some who has built the circuit from the vero layout on page 6 could help

cheers

you can use a polarized cap, just put - to the output.

Hides-His-Eyes wrote:That power of ten difference sounds like a cap replacement; taking the input cap as a low pass filter for example, a 5n and a 10M would correspond to a corner freq of 3Hz. I'm not precisely sure what % attenuation is used to determine frequency response.

The 100n/10M in an SHO corresponds to a corner of 0.2Hz, so to get that up to 2Hz would be either reducing the resistor to 1M or increasing the cap to 1u.

The output cap/resistor have the same RC value so you'd also have to either use a 1M pot or a 100u capacitor there to get 2Hz at the bottom.

It's usual to determine the frequency response by noting what the frequecy is when the output of a circuit falls to either -1 or -3dB,-3dB is fairly common since it represents a power reduction of half the initial power at 0dB,the smallest loudness change that the ear can just detect is about 1dB so -1dB is used alot in HI FI sound systems.....

okay, well i built two CNOs and connected them like a super duper, incl. master volume on the second one.

the problem is, on both sides i get zero amplification, the sound only gets thinner. When i turn up the "gain" (which it isn't) it adds more treble to the already thin sound.
Both sides act the same, the second one differs only by the master vol, which is useless without amplification (kinda like a negative boost)

what could be the problem that the gain knob acts like a tone control adding treble? wth?
i used the vero layout, but i tried x-checking with the schematic and cannot see any difference (except the bipolar cap in the schem., which i am using)

Okay I went ahead and measured the voltages to ground on the BS170s on both CNOs.
on both sides i get (top to bottom: d-g-s):
-4.5 V
-2.2 V
0 V

I made sure there is a cable plugged in. What puzzles me is that the voltages are the same, no matter if i switch on or off.

I'm a little puzzled why nobody answers me, because i think when a gain knob acts like a high pass filter that could not have a variety of reasons, no? I checked all the connections and for little copper or tin connections between the vero traces, nothing. I insulated the box from the inside with tape at the common shorting places.
I don't know, given that both sides work exactly the same, i was thinking maybe the vero layout i used has a mistake? I'm kicking myself for not using Soulsonic's Vero Layout, but just found that a couple of days ago.

This is supposed to be a present to a friend and I'd like to finish it today, but seems like this won't happen
Well maybe the Voltages I posted will give some kind of clue

Just replying so you don't feel alone, but I've absolutely no idea. -ve voltages are odd; are you sure the power supply is the right way round and that you're measuring voltages with respect to ground? Are you sure all cap values are correct?

Hides-His-Eyes wrote:Are you sure all cap values are correct?

omg that tip was golden, i just noticed i confused 100nf with 100pf for C1. I used a styroflex cap and they almost only come in pF-Values, so there is one mistake. Could that be the reason for the strange behaviour of the circuit(s)? I made them identical, so the styro is on both.

i'll try changing them and see if it works then.
thanks!

Seiche wrote:

Hides-His-Eyes wrote:Are you sure all cap values are correct?

omg that tip was golden, i just noticed i confused 100nf with 100pf for C1. I used a styroflex cap and they almost only come in pF-Values, so there is one mistake. Could that be the reason for the strange behaviour of the circuit(s)? I made them identical, so the styro is on both.

i'll try changing them and see if it works then.
thanks!

That could definitely be the problem. As for your "voltage is always the same even if circuit is off" what do you mean? Unless you are disconnecting the battery when you turn it off, the voltage is always there. In a typical bypass arrangement, the circuit is always on, but when you switch it "off" all you are doing is routing the signal past it without going through the circuit.

Barcode wrote:Unless you are disconnecting the battery when you turn it off, the voltage is always there. In a typical bypass arrangement, the circuit is always on, but when you switch it "off" all you are doing is routing the signal past it without going through the circuit.

I see. I somehow always assumed the voltages must be different when turned off. I don't know why, now that I think it about it, what you say does make sense.

btw: the CNO super duper works now. Very nice! Now I only have to connect LEDs and I'm set. What i noticed though was that I should have used a reverse audio pot for the gain stage, the range is too limited with a regular audio pot.

Also, it took me about 5minutes to remember that in the super duper the middle master volume controls the left or second SHO (CNO in my case). It somehow seemed more logical for it to come after the gain pot, not before. When both are turned up all the way (of course using the master volume) i get crazy distortion, which is basically unuseable, though it doesn't cut out like Z.Vex mentioned.

I will do some more testing and then report back! I might build a second one for myself

What I had in mind for another fun little project is a CNO with a master volume and maybe some switchable clipping diodes (kinda like a no diodes / symmetric / asymmetric configuration) to get more distortion earlier. How would I be able to do this? add them between output capacitor and 100k master vol pot to ground? I tried including a picture, sorry it's really ugly.

If this is right, this might make a good beginner's project.



btw, soulsonic states on his fx site for the "burning discharge" (=CNO):

SoulSonic FX wrote: I improved it with my exclusive noise-free gain control and a better transistor that not only has lower noise, but also includes internal protection against electrostatic discharge damage

I wonder what that "better transistor" is

I'm pretty sure he is referring to the 2n7000. It has internal protection.

I wasn't aware of that. I thought there was a BS170 that you could get with protection. I want to say it has a K suffix.

I thought the 2N7000 is noisy?
Which part of the datasheet tells me the noise factor?

btw.: is that diode clipping arrangement the right way to do it? would that even work the way i described?

Barcode wrote:I'm pretty sure he is referring to the 2n7000. It has internal protection.

I just found this further up this thread (page 4):

soulsonic wrote:I had originally used 2N7000 in a couple, but then I tried the BS170, and that's been my choice ever since. The 2N7000 sounds excessively noisy and grungy to me... it can sound cool in some effects, but as just a straight booster kinda thing, I think the BS170 is definitely superior.
I've tried comparing the cheaper Fairchild BS170 to the more expensive Zetex BS170P, but I didn't hear much difference... maybe just subtle differences, but not enough for me to justify 4 times the cost. Maybe I'd use the Zetex in something more expensive just because it's fancier.